&#39;Lost Hills&#39; female pistachio

ABSTRACT

A new and distinct variety of pistachio tree denominated ‘Lost Hills’ is described. This selections most significant advantage is the superior size and appearance of the in-shell nut. The variety is less chilling sensitive than ‘Kerman’ which improves uniformity of foliation, bloom, nut set, nut fill and uniformity of nut maturity at harvest.

BOTANICAL/COMMERCIAL CLASSIFICATION

(Pistacia vera)/new Pistachio variety.

VARIETY DENOMINATION

‘Lost Hills’.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a new and distinct variety of Pistachiotree Pistacia vera which has been denominated varietally as ‘LostHills,’ and more particularly to such a pistachio tree which has aharvest date of four to sixteen days earlier than the industry standardpistachio tree variety ‘Kerman’.

Its novel features include an earlier harvest than ‘Kerman’, anindividual nut size larger than ‘Kerman’ and the percentage of splitnuts greater than ‘Kerman’. The earlier harvest date will permit growersto extend their harvest period and reduce competition for scarceharvesting resources and will permit harvest in northern areas of thestate before fall rains which can promote disease. The cultivar requiresless chilling for dormancy than ‘Kerman’, which improves uniformity offoliation, bloom, pollination, nut filling and nut maturity at harvestin years with insufficient chilling for ‘Kerman’.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It was found that the new cultivar exhibits the following combination ofcharacteristics as compared to ‘Kerman’, the industry standard: a)Thiscultivar produced 26% higher grower paid yield than ‘Kerman’, theprimary cultivar grown on a commercial basis in California (<95% of thecrop), totaled across all 3 years and equal to ‘Kerman’ in 2004; b) Nutsize is on average larger than ‘Kerman’ and weight is similar; c)Percent splits were consistently higher than ‘Kerman’, especially in2003; d) Flowering and harvest are 2 to 4 weeks earlier than ‘Kerman’.This earlier harvest date is important as it permits growers to moreefficiently use their equipment and labor by spreading the harvestperiod across 6 weeks, rather than the current 3 week harvest period.Fruit ripening is also more uniform than was observed for ‘Kerman’; e)Earlier harvest resulted in significantly less navel orangeworm damage(0.3% vs. 9.3%). This is an important characteristic since nut damage onthe tree is associated with aflatoxin contamination; and f) ‘Lost Hills’buds were about 1 mm longer than ‘Kerman’ buds.

‘Lost Hills’ has been asexually reproduced in Kern County, Californiaand Madera County, California. The cultivar was propagated from buds,inserted into both PGI and UCB-1 rootstocks (budded onto). All of thecultivars are present at field locations in Kern Co. and Madera Co.(test plots). In addition 2 trees of each have been budded on UCB-1rootstocks in pots at Davis, Calif. for planting into the field thisspring. In addition Lost Hills is grafted onto UCB-1 rootstock in thefield at the Wolfskill experimental farm near Winters, Calif. at row 4,trees 11A and B.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1. Flowers and leaves from grafted trees at the Bakersfield testplot in 2003.

FIG. 2. ‘Lost Hills’ flowers—Mar. 31, 2004. About one week ahead of‘Kerman’, flowers have set, end of bloom period.

FIG. 3. ‘Kerman’ flowers—Mar. 31, 2004, mid-bloom. Note that leafing ismore advanced than for ‘Lost Hills’ even though flowering is later.

FIG. 4. Comparison of ‘Lost Hills’ and ‘Kerman’ leaves and flowers—Mar.31, 2004.

FIG. 5. Fruit clusters on ‘Lost Hills’ tree at Bakersfield plot, 2003.

FIG. 6. Picture of ‘Lost Hills’ trees at the Bakersfield test plot in2003.

FIG. 7. Roasted seed harvested from ‘Lost Hills’ grafted trees in theBakersfield plot, 2003.

FIG. 8. ‘Lost Hills’ and ‘Kerman’ roasted nuts.

FIG. 9. Year by variety mean values for total yield (CCP assessedweight).

FIG. 10. Year by variety mean values for yield of split nuts.

FIG. 11. Year by variety mean values for yield of % splitnuts—untransformed data.

FIG. 12. Year by variety mean values for grower paid yield.

FIG. 13. Lenticel pictures from each of 5 trees for ‘Kerman’ and ‘LostHills’. The areas shown are 25 sq. cm, 5 cm on each side.

DETAILED BOTANICAL DESCRIPTION

The following description describes the key characteristics of a newfemale pistachio cultivar named ‘Lost Hills’ as well as reference to thestandard pistachio cultivar ‘Kerman’ in California.

The Royal Horticultural Society color chart from 1986 is used in theidentification of color. Also, common color terms are to be accordedtheir ordinary dictionary significance.

-   The cross:

The cross that produced ‘Lost Hills’ was originally made in 1990, andthe original seedling was planted at a research plot in 1991 nearBakersfield, Calif. The cross was made between a Pistacia vera female‘2-35’, located in Kern County and propagated from wood supplied toJoseph Maranto from a plot in UC Davis in 1985, and a Pistacia vera male‘ES#6’ originally from Chico, Calif. ES#6 is no longer available. Thisselection from the cross was designated as B19-12. Field notes on itsperformance were taken from 1994 to 1999. Buds from this seedling treewere budded to rootstocks planted in August 1997 in an advancedselection trial in a plot near Lost Hills, Calif. Each plant selectionis represented by 2 replicates of 10 trees grafted to ‘UCB1’ rootstockand 10 trees grafted to ‘PG-1’ rootstock per replicate. They firstflowered in 2000. Performance data was taken in 2002, 2003, and 2004.Nursery rootstock trees were budded with this selection in 1997 and wereused to plant a second advanced selection trial in Madera County northof Fresno in September 1999. Each plant selection is represented by tworeplicates of 5 trees grafted to ‘UCB1’ and 5 trees grafted to ‘PG-1’per replicate. This selection flowered and fruited in 2003. Performancedata was taken in 2004. The cultivar is stable and no significantdifferences in morphological or phenological characteristics wereobserved when propagated on rootstocks.

-   Tree vigor:

The tree is of average size for a pistachio, based on observation of 7year old trees. Grafted trees are about 3 m tall at 7 years with aspread equal to the height. Trunk diameters are 10 to 15 cm.

-   Tree structure:

‘Lost Hills’ has tree structure and branching habit typical for Pistaciavera L. Branch angles are broad, ranging from 80 to 90 degrees for bothscaffold and lateral branches. Distribution of scaffold and lateralbranches are a function of pruning and training activities which arepracticed intensively during the first three years of growth (FIGS. 2and 6).

-   Bark:

‘Lost Hills’ bark color was identical to the bark color of ‘Kerman’,specifically RHS 202D (grey).

-   Trunk lenticels:

Close up photo evaluation of trunk lenticels was undertaken. No clearconsistent differences in pattern were observed between the 2 cultivars.The distribution and physical characteristics of lenticels for ‘LostHills’ appeared to be quite variable, perhaps more so than for ‘Kerman’.FIG. 13. shows sample pictures from 5 trees of each cultivar. The areashown is 5 cm×5 cm. ‘Kerman’ lenticels appear to be distinctly shorterand are more widely spaced on the bark, both horizontally andvertically. The color of the ‘Lost Hills’ lenticels ranged from RHS 172C(grey orange) to RHS 199B-C (grey brown) as compared to ‘Kerman’, forwhich the color of the lenticels was RHS 172D. The width of thelenticels of ‘Lost Hills’ ranged from 1 to 2 mm, with an average of 1.5mm. The width of the lenticels of ‘Kerman’ ranged from 1 to 2+ mm, anaverage of 1.8 to 2.0 mm. The height of the lenticels from both ‘LostHills’ and ‘Kerman’ was an average of 1 mm.

-   Flower buds:

Bud size analysis for ‘Lost Hills’ and ‘Kerman’ was limited to budlength, since this was the only characteristic that seemed to bedifferent between the cultivars. The buds were much thinner than for themales, making width measurements problematic. 10 buds per tree weremeasured for each of 5 trees. Within tree differences were not found tobe highly significant, so data for each cultivar was bulked (e.g. 50buds per cv) and analyzed using a completely random design. As can beseen from the data analysis, bud length differences were highlysignificant. ‘Lost Hills’ buds were about 1 mm longer than ‘Kerman’buds. (Tables 1 and 2). The color of the emerging inflorescence for‘Lost Hills’ was RHS 145B while the color of the emerging inflorescencefor ‘Kerman’ was RHS 145C (yellow-green). TABLE 1 ANOVA Table for bud l(mm) Sum of Mean F- P- DF Squares Square Value Value Lambda Power Cul- 225.473 12.736 25.503 <.0001 51.007 1.000 tivar Re- 147 73.411 .499sidual Means Table for bud l (mm) Effect: Cultivar Count Mean Std. Dev.Std. Err. Golden Hills 50 8.340 .626 .089 Kerman 50 7.476 .643 .091 LostHills 50 8.360 .832 .118

TABLE 2 Fisher's PLSD for bud l (mm) Effect: Cultivar SignificanceLevel: 5% Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value Golden Hills, Kerman .864 .279<.0001 S Golden Hills, Lost Hills −.020 .279 .8877 Kerman, Lost Hills−.884 .279 <.0001 S Scheffe for bud l (mm) Effect: Cultivar SignificanceLevel: 5% Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value Golden Hills, Kerman .864 .350<.0001 S Golden Hills, Lost Hills −.020 .350 .9900 Kerman, Lost Hills−.884 .350 <.0001 S

-   Inflorescences:

Female inflorescences are born laterally alternately on branches, rarelyas terminal buds. They are located on one year old wood. The flower budsform a branched compound inflorescence of the panicle form. Individualflowers are about 1 mm in size. All flowers are female. The panicles are5 to 8 cm long with considerable variation in size. The panicles becomemore extended as flowering progresses. Flowers become receptive from thebase to the tip of the panicle, and the total period of receptivity mayspans a 3 week period, depending on weather conditions during individualseasons. Flowers are pale green (RHS 144C) as are the supportingstructures of the panicles (FIGS. 1, 2 and 4). Comparisons with ‘Kerman’are provided in FIGS. 3 and 4.

-   Flowering date:    Data from seedling test plot in Kern County, California:

1996: For ‘Lost Hills’—Apr. 8, 1996

1997: For ‘Lost Hills’—first flowering Apr. 22, 1997 to Apr. 28, 1997,peak flowering Apr. 29, 1997 to May 5, 1997, last flowering Apr. 29,1997 to May 5, 1997; for ‘Kerman’—first flowering Apr. 22, 1997 to Apr.28, 1997, peak flowering Apr. 29, 1997 to May 5, 1997, lastflowering—May 6, 1997 to May 13, 1997

1998: For ‘Lost Hills’—first flowering Apr. 4, 1998 to Apr. 11, 1998,peak flowering Apr. 12, 1998 to Apr. 19, 1998, last flowering Apr. 20,1998 to Apr. 27, 1998; for ‘Kerman’—first flowering Apr. 20, 1998 toApr. 27, 1998, peak flowering Apr. 28, 1998 to May 5, 1998, lastflowering May 6, 1998 to May 13, 1998

1999: For ‘Lost Hills’—first flowering Mar. 13, 1999 to Mar. 16, 1999,peak flowering Mar. 17, 1999 to Mar. 21, 1999 , last flowering Mar. 21,1999 to Mar. 26, 1999

2000: For ‘Lost Hills’—first flowering Apr. 8, 2000 to Apr. 13, 2000

Data from grafted test plot in Kern County: Trees were grafted on either‘UCB1’ or ‘Pioneer Gold-1’ rootstocks. Visits to the two experimentalsites were made at intervals of three to four days through the bloomperiod. In 2004 (8^(th) year since grafting), a bloom-rating of 1through 6 was used with 1=dormant; 2=early bloom, 3=mid bloom, 4=fullbloom and 5=late bloom. Bloom evaluation is subjective; the number ofindividual flowers in bloom within an inflorescence varies, as does thedegree of flowering at different locations along a branch. Full bloomwas an estimate of when the maximum number of receptive stigmas werepresent on the tree. On Mar. 25, 2004 ‘Lost Hills’ was at full or midbloom (3.3), ‘Kerman’ was just beginning to break buds (1.5).

-   Leaves:

The leaves are single parapinnate compound leaves with an average numberof leaflets of 3 or 5. The apex of the leaflet blades is obtuse tocuspidate, and the leaflet base is rounded. The leaflet margins areentire to slightly crenate. The leaflets are oval to ovate. The terminalleaflet appears mucronate in some situations. The leaflets are typically3-5 cm wide and 4 to 7 cm long. The compound leaf is typically 10 to 15cm long. There is considerable variation in leaf and leaflet sizedepending on time of the season, position in the tree, and year. Thewidth of a compound leaf ranges from 8 to 14 cm. The length of acompound leaf ranges from 10 to 15 cm. Margins of leaf blades areentire. Leaf surfaces are glabrous, smooth and waxy. The color of theupper and lower surfaces of the leaves ranges from light green (RHS139B) at first emergence to dark green (RHS 139A) at maturity (RHS 136Ato RHS 136A). (FIGS. 1, 2, and 4). The upper surfaces of the leaves of‘Kerman’ range from RHS 136A to RHS 139A at emergence to maturity (FIGS.1, 2, and 4). The leaf vein and petiole of ‘Lost Hills’ are a lightyellowish green in color (RHS 149C to D). The petiole is 4 to 7 cm inlength and the texture is smooth, with no wings.

-   Leafing date:

‘Lost Hills’ flowers significantly before ‘Kerman’, leafing tends tofollow flowering, rather than being synchronous as with ‘Kerman’.

1997: for ‘Lost Hills’—first leafing Apr. 29, 1997 to May 5, 1997; for‘Kerman’ Apr. 29, 1997 to May 5, 1997

1998: for ‘Lost Hills’—first leafing Apr. 20, 1998 to Apr. 27, 1998; for‘Kerman’ Apr. 20, 1998 to Apr. 27, 1998

1999: for ‘Lost Hills’—first leafing Mar. 16, 1999 to Mar. 23, 1999

2000: for ‘Lost Hills’—first leafing Apr. 8, 2000 to Apr.13, 2000

-   Nut description:

Nuts are arranged in panicle clusters (FIG. 5). They are considereddrupes. Most flowers abort so that 10 to 20 nuts per cluster remain. Thecolor of the pellicle for ‘Lost Hills’ is grey shading to purple-red(RHS 201D). The pellicle is approximately 0.1 mm in thickness. Huskcolor gradually changes from a light green in late June to a creamywhite color (RHS 8D to 11D) prior to harvest (FIG. 5). The surfacetexture of the hull is smooth and dull, with roughness approximatelyequivalent to 1000 grit sandpaper. The hull thickness ranges between 1and 1.5 mm. Husks (exo-mesocarp) initially adhere tightly to the shell(endocarp) but become detached but intact at harvest. Past harvest thehusks split, exposing the shell. Shells split midseason, usually 4 to 6weeks prior to harvest. Some shells do not split, producing a nut withlow economic value. This is an important commercial character. Blanknuts are formed when the embryo aborts but the shell and husk continueto develop. Blank nuts are commercially undesirable and do notcontribute to yield. ‘Lost Hills’ produces a processed nut that islarger than ‘Kerman’ in size and similar in color. Nuts are oval, longerthan wide with a round and rounded tip (FIG. 7). The shell suture isdeep, extending from the tip almost to the base and is symmetrical.‘Kerman’ nuts are noticeably shorter than ‘Lost Hills’ nuts (Table 3)and are less symmetrical (FIG. 8). Shell sutures are less symmetricaland a significant percentage of in-shell nuts have a flattened shapewith longer shell sutures on one side, not typical for ‘Lost Hills’. Thecolor of the ‘Lost Hills’ kernel is green (RHS 144C), darker than thekernel of ‘Kerman’ (RHS 149D). The average kernel size is 2.02 cm inlength, 1.06 cm in width, and 1.05 cm in depth. The form of the kernelis generally egg-shaped or ovate, narrowing toward the micropylar end.There is usually an offset depression near rhte stem end. The stem endof the kernel terminates in a dull point. The surface texture of thekernel is smooth, with surface wrinkles oriented in a linear manner fromthe stem end to the micropylar end. The average weight of the kernel is0.68 grams. The flavor of the kernel is typical of pistachios, similarto ‘Kerman’, and is slightly sweet and nutty. TABLE 3 Average individualnut length and width ¹ of nuts for ‘Lost Hills’ and ‘Kerman’ on ‘PG-1’rootstock from a test plot in northwestern Kern County from 2002 through2004 (7^(th) and 8^(th) leaf). nut length, mm nut width, mm Cultivar2003 2004 2003 2004 ‘Lost Hills’ 21.3 19.8 12.5 13.4 ‘Kerman’ 17.8 17.012.2 12.3¹ In 2003 the values in the table were based on one 50 nut sample fromeach variety. In 2004 the values in the table were based on one 50 nutsample from each of the two replicates of each variety.Split nuts as a percentage of total nuts (at Kern Co. location unlessotherwise noted):

2002: ‘Lost Hills’=86%; ‘Kerman’=85%

2003: ‘Lost Hills’=92%; ‘Kerman’=60%

2004: ‘Lost Hills’=90%; ‘Kerman’=90%

2004 at Madera plot: ‘Lost Hills’=74%; ‘Kerman’=59%

Blank nut percentages (at Kern Co. location unless otherwise noted):

Cumulative 2002-2004: ‘Lost Hills’=4.1%; ‘Kerman’=24.2%

-   Harvest date:

‘Lost Hills’ matures 2 to 3 weeks earlier than ‘Kerman’ (Table 4). Thisis a valuable commercial character as it permits growers to bettermanage the harvest which otherwise occurs over a short time period.Delayed harvest can also result in high levels of insect (NavelOrangeworm) damage and associated aflatoxin contamination. TABLE 4Harvest dates for 'Lost Hills' and ‘Kerman’ on PG-1' rootstock from atest plot in northwestern Kern County from 2002 through 2004 (6^(th)through 8^(th) leaf). Cultivar 2002 ¹ 2003 ¹ 2004 ‘Lost Hills’ September4 August 29 August 25 ‘Kerman’ September 4 September 19 September 21¹ Oil applied in February of 2002 and 2003 to promote earlier bloom inthe surrounding orchard (and also in the test plot).

-   Insect damage:

Cumulative insect damage on nuts was 0.3% for ‘Lost Hills’ and 9.3% for‘Kerman’ from 2002 through 2004.

Additional harvest timing, yield and nut quality information (2002 and2003) for ‘Lost Hills’ compared to ‘Kerman’ on PG-1 rootstock is shownbelow. The data from the Kern County Plot is from a different samplingthan that shown below. 2002 2003 ‘Lost ‘Lost Characteristic ‘Kerman’Hills’ ‘Kerman’ Hills’ nut yield (CPC weight) 12.8 12.6 8.0 16.2 (5%moisture), lbs/tree split edible in-shell, 10.0 10.9 4.7 14.9 lbs/treeedible in-shell split 78 86 52 89 percentage loose shell and kernel 1 100 1 percentage closed shell percentage 20 3 46 10 blank nuts (no kernel)7 2 6 4 percentage individual nut weight 1.44 1.57 1.25 1.48 (grams)approximate date ready Sep. 14, Sep. 1, Sep. 16, Aug. 29, for harvest2002 2002 2002 2003

-   Yield:

‘Lost Hills’ had yields, including grower paid yield (after non-splitnuts and insect damaged nuts are accounted for), similar to ‘Kerman’,but significantly greater yields for 2002, a year with low chilling.Cumulative yields for ‘Lost Hills’ from 2002 through 2004 were 26%greater for ‘Kerman’, mostly due to improved performance in 2003. (FIGS.8-12)

Total yield in lbs/acre:

2002: ‘Lost Hills’=1708; ‘Kerman’=1593

2003: ‘Lost Hills’=2185; ‘Kerman’=1081

2004: ‘Lost Hills’=2998; ‘Kerman’=3032

Yield of split nuts in lbs/acre:

2002: ‘Lost Hills’=1474; ‘Kerman’=1355

2003: ‘Lost Hills’=2017; ‘Kerman’=641

2004: ‘Lost Hills’=2707; ‘Kerman’=2725

Grower paid yield in lbs/acre:

2002: ‘Lost Hills’=1591; ‘Kerman’=1474

2003: ‘Lost Hills’=2100; ‘Kerman’=861

2004: ‘Lost Hills’=2853; ‘Kerman’=2875

Values for total yield, inshell yield, and grower paid yield arepresented in Table 5. TABLE 5 Cumulative nut yields¹ for ‘Lost Hills’and ‘Kerman’ on ‘PG-1’ rootstock from a test plot in northwestern KernCounty from 2002 through 2004 (6^(th) through 8^(th) leaf). Grower-paidCPC assessed Edible split inshell yield², Cultivar weight, lbs./acrenuts, lbs./acre lbs./acre ‘Lost Hills’ 6891 6198 6543 ‘Kerman’ 5707 47215211¹Yields based on two replications of 10 trees each. Trees were on PG-1rootstock.²Grower-paid yield is the weight of harvested nuts for which the groweris paid. This yield is basically the CPC assessed weight minus theweight of the shells from closed shell and shelling stock.

Evaluation data from the Madera County Test plot is presented in Table6. This data is relatively preliminary, representing only the firstharvestable yield. As was true at the Kern County location, split nutpercentages were higher for ‘Lost Hills’ and blank nut percentages werelower for ‘Lost Hills’ as compared to ‘Kerman’. Nut weights were similarto ‘Kerman’. Tables 7-18 show additional data on the yield of ‘LostHills’ as compared to both ‘Kerman’ (unpatented) and ‘Golden Hills’(U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/086,170). TABLE 6 Nutcharacteristics for three advanced selections and ‘Kerman’ on ‘PG-1’ and‘UCB1’ rootstock in a test plot located in southern Madera County, 2004split adhering blank loose average nut nut, hull, nuts, shell andweight¹, Cultivar % % % kernel, % grams ‘Kerman’ 59.4 10.6 13.8 3.7 1.29‘Lost Hills’ 73.6 11.2 5.2 0.9 1.19¹Based on 50 nut samples.

TABLE 7 ANOVA for total yield (CCP assessed weight). Years, varieties,and interactions were significant. DF Sum of Squares Mean Square year 211657142.11 5828571.056 variety 2 1888152.111 944076.056 year * variety4 1710508.889 427627.222 Residual 9 1020624.500 113402.722 F-ValueP-Value Lambda Power year 51.397 <.0001 102.794 1.000 variety 8.325.0090 16.650 .880 year * variety 3.771 .0455 15.083 .668

TABLE 8 Total yield means table (lbs/acre CCP assessed weight) forvarieties × years. Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 2002, Kerman 21593.500 88.388 62.500 2002, Lost Hills 2 1707.500 67.175 47.500 2002,Golden Hills 2 1762.500 540.937 382.500 2003, Kerman 2 1081.500 55.86139.500 2003, Lost Hills 2 2185.000 537.401 380.000 2003, Golden Hills 22048.500 386.787 273.500 2004, Kerman 2 3032.000 52.326 37.000 2004,Lost Hills 2 2998.000 345.068 244.000 2004, Golden Hills 2 4276.000390.323 276.000

TABLE 9 Mean differences for yield (CCP assessed weight), protectedLSDs, and Scheffe tests (5% significance) for varieties. ‘Golden Hills’had significantly higher yield than ‘Kerman’ at the 1% significancelevel. ‘Lost Hills’ had higher yields than ‘Kerman’, but only at the7.3% level and lower yield than ‘Golden Hills’, also at the 7% level. Sdenotes significant difference at 5%. Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value LSDGolden Hills, Kerman 793.333 439.819 .0028 S Golden Hills, Lost Hills398.833 439.819 .0705 Kerman, Lost Hills −394.500 439.819 .0730 ScheffeGolden Hills, Kerman 793.333 567.273 .0090 S Golden Hills, Lost Hills398.833 567.273 .1780 Kerman, Lost Hills −394.500 567.273 .1836

TABLE 10 ANOVA for split nut yields. Years, varieties, and interactionswere significant. DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares year 2 11502633.3335751316.667 variety 2 1966566.333 983283.167 year * variety 42154286.333 538571.583 Residual 9 866340.500 96260.056 F-Value P-ValueLambda Power year 59.748 <.0001 119.495 1.000 variety 10.215 .004820.430 .938 year * variety 5.595 .0153 22.380 .848

TABLE 11 Split nut yields means table (lbs/acre) for varieties × years.Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 2002, Kerman 2 1355.000 171.120 121.0002002, Lost Hills 2 1474.000 65.054 46.000 2002, Golden Hills 2 1677.500478.711 338.500 2003, Kerman 2 641.000 106.066 75.000 2003, Lost Hills 22016.500 504.167 356.500 2003, Golden Hills 2 1484.000 216.375 153.0002004, Kerman 2 2725.500 .707 .500 2004, Lost Hills 2 2707.500 327.390231.500 2004, Golden Hills 2 3968.500 429.214 303.500

TABLE 12 Mean differences, protected LSDs, and Scheffe tests (5%significance) for varieties (split nut yields). Both ‘Lost Hills’ and‘Golden Hills’ had significantly higher yields of split nuts than‘Kerman’ at the 1% significance level. S denotes significant differenceat 5%. Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value LSD Golden Hills, Kerman 802.833405.215 .0015 S Golden Hills, Lost Hills 310.667 405.215 .1169 Kerman,Lost Hills −492.167 405.215 .0226 S Scheffe Golden Hills, Kerman 802.833522.641 .0051 S Golden Hills, Lost Hills 310.667 522.641 .2732 Kerman,Lost Hills −492.167 522.641 .0645

TABLE 13 ANOVA for % split nuts (transformed data). Years, varieties,and interactions were significant. DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares year 211.297 5.649 variety 2 5.627 2.813 year * variety 4 11.524 2.881Residual 9 2.171 .241 F-Value P-Value Lambda Power year 23.416 .000346.832 1.000 variety 11.663 .0032 23.325 .964 year * variety 11.943.0012 47.771 .995

TABLE 14 Mean % split nuts (lbs/acre) for varieties × years -untransformed data. Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 2002, Kerman 2 84.8666.031 4.265 2002, Lost Hills 2 86.317 .414 .293 2002, Golden Hills 295.507 2.152 1.521 2003, Kerman 2 59.602 12.886 9.112 2003, Lost Hills 292.241 .387 .274 2003, Golden Hills 2 72.743 3.172 2.243 2004, Kerman 289.904 1.528 1.081 2004, Lost Hills 2 90.280 .529 .374 2004, GoldenHills 2 92.737 1.573 1.112

TABLE 15 Mean differences, protected LSDs, and Scheffe tests (5%significance) for varieties (% split nuts - transformed data). Both‘Lost Hills’ and ‘Golden Hills’ had significantly higher yields of splitnuts than ‘Kerman’ at the 1+% significance level. ‘Lost Hills’ and‘Golden Hills’ were not significantly different with respect to splitnut percentages. S denotes significant difference at 5%. Mean Diff.Crit. Diff. P-Value LSD Golden Hills, Kerman .051 .041 .0187 S GoldenHills, Lost Hills −.016 .041 .4090 Kerman, Lost Hills −.067 .041 .0047 SScheffe Golden Hills, Kerman .051 .041 .0187 S Golden Hills, Lost Hills−.016 .041 .4090 Kerman, Lost Hills −.067 .041 .0047 S

TABLE 16 ANOVA for grower paid yield. Years, varieties, and interactionswere significant. DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares year 2 11536201.4445768100.722 variety 2 1925492.111 962746.056 year * variety 41888457.889 472114.472 Residual 9 9245454.000 102727.222 F-Value P-ValueLambda Power year 56.150 <.0001 112.299 1.000 variety 9.372 .0063 18.744.916 year * variety 4.596 .0269 18.383 .763

TABLE 17 Grower paid yield means table (lbs/acre) for varieties × years.Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 2002, Kerman 2 1474.000 130.108 92.0002002, Lost Hills 2 1591.000 66.468 47.000 2002, Golden Hills 2 1720.500509.824 360.500 2003, Kerman 2 861.500 24.749 17.500 2003, Lost Hills 22099.500 519.723 367.500 2003, Golden Hills 2 1766.500 301.935 213.5002004, Kerman 2 2875.500 21.920 15.500 2004, Lost Hills 2 2853.000336.583 238.000 2004, Golden Hills 2 4122.500 409.415 289.500

TABLE 18 Mean differences, protected LSDs, and Scheffe tests (5%significance) for varieties (grower paid yield). Both ‘Lost Hills’ and‘Golden Hills’ had significantly higher grower paid yield of split nutsthan ‘Kerman’ at the 5% significance level. ‘Golden Hills’ had highergrower paid yield than ‘Lost Hills’ at the 9% significance level. Sdenotes significant difference at 5%. Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value LSDGolden Hills, Kerman 799.500 418.605 .0019 S Golden Hills, Lost Hills355.333 418.605 .0870 Kerman, Lost Hills −444.167 418.605 .0399 SScheffe Golden Hills, Kerman 799.500 539.912 .0064 S Golden Hills, LostHills 355.333 539.912 .2133 Kerman, Lost Hills −444.167 539.912 .1079

-   Chilling requirement:

This variety has less of a chilling requirement for dormancy as comparedto ‘Kerman’ resulting in more uniform spring foliation, flowering,pollination and nut maturity at harvest.

-   Disease resistance and susceptibility:

Earlier harvest resulted in significantly less navel orangeworm damage(0.0% vs. 9.3%). This is an important characteristic since nut damage onthe tree is associated with aflatoxin contamination.

-   Usage:

The nuts are primarily sold as a dry “in shell” product for directconsumption at the retail level. They made be sold either “salted” or“unsalted”. They are marketed either in packages or are sold in bulk.Small quantities may be used in confections or ice cream. The shippingquality of the nut is excellent, and is similar to kerman when the huskis removed and the nut is dried. The nut maybe stored dry (<6% moisture)at room temperature for up to one year, before exhibiting off-type orstale flavor.

‘Lost Hills’ is a female tree with a harvest date 2 to 4 weeks earlierthan ‘Kerman’, which is the industry standard. ‘Lost Hills’ produces ahigher percentage of split, edible nuts than ‘Kerman’ in all years,especially in 2003 when split percentages for ‘Kerman’ were very poor.Nut size is larger than ‘Kerman’, but weight is similar. The earlierharvest date will permit growers to extend their harvest period andreduce competition for scarce harvesting resources and may reducedisease in the northern production areas of the state by permitting anearlier harvest before fall rains. The cultivar requires less chillingthan ‘Kerman’, which improves uniformity of foliation, bloom, nut set,nut fill, and uniformity of nut maturity at harvest in years withinsufficient chilling for ‘Kerman’.

1. A new and distinct variety of pistachio tree substantially as shownand described herein.